Friday, March 27, 2015

Without getting too much into what was actually said the past week or so, some coaches complained about the turnaround time in between rounds. Using one of the complainers as an example: Wisconsin played late, late Sunday night, then had to play a Thursday Sweet 16 game, while the other 3 teams in their regional played on Thursday/Saturday the previous week. This means an extra day of rest/prep.

Now, this kind of thing is unavoidable in the current system. Wisky just happened to be closest to a Friday/Sunday pod in week 1, just like Arizona just happened to be closest to a Thursday/Saturday pod. We could rig the system to make sure every team in a region plays the same day on week 1, but we'd lose significant, significant ground in terms of travel. The whole pod system that we have today is contingent on making this sacrifice in days off. Sure, in an ideal world, everyone in the West region would be playing Thursday/Saturday, but it's not feasible, and we're past the point of no return there.

A bigger issue is the TV times itself. It's no secret TV execs control what games are shown when, and on which channel. It's done to maximize eyeballs to TVs. No surprise. But even with that, I'd like to see some consideration to common sense.

The smoking gun: at a game on Friday in Columbus, Ohio, Dayton/Providence tipped off, at a local time of 10:52PM. That is ridiculous. Period.

Let's look at the Friday schedule a little deeper. There were 4 sites in play: Charlotte, Columbus, Omaha, Seattle. Logic would say Charlotte and Columbus should tip first, and Seattle and Omaha should tip last, so that they'd have the final game of the day. And, actually, the tip times in Seattle are reasonable. It's the tip times in Omaha that went haywire.

Scheduled tip times in Omaha, in local time: 11:15AM, 1:45PM, 5:50PM, 8:20PM. Seem reasonable on the surface. However:
Scheduled tip times in Columbus, in local time: 2:10PM, 4:40PM, 7:27PM, 9:57PM. And the last tip time extended an hour past schedule. Note the turnaround time in between the 2nd game and 3rd game - most regionals have at least an hour in there, to switch out crowds and things like that. Columbus was scheduled to have no turnaround time.

This is insane. Why didn't the times for Columbus and Omaha flip with one another? Why are they waiting until 2PM local time to tip in Columbus? Columbus was the LAST of the 4 regions to tip. The answer seems to be TV.

The Maryland/Valpo game (in Columbus) would get the awkward 4:40PM start time where viewership is minimized. They wanted Maryland/Valpo in that spot because the other 3 games had Indiana, Louisville, and a highly-ranked Virginia team, who are better TV draws. Why did the WVU/Buffalo game in Columbus tip last? Because Kansas tipped first (in Omaha). And the first game to tip has a national audience for nearly a full half. Can't have WVU anchor a whole 35 minutes of television.

The real crime, though, were the Saturday/Sunday schedules. Let me break down how they work. With 4 regionals, there are 4 "windows". These windows, let's call: CBS Early, CBS Late, TNT, TBS. Each name is self-explanatory. The CBS Early window is a national window - no other games play at the same time as the CBS Early games. This is by design, I'm sure. I imagine it's the type of thing CBS wanted in the TV contracts - if they're giving up games to the Turner sports networks, they want the exclusive window in return.

Well, here's a problem. CBS obviously wanted the Kentucky game for its Early window on Saturday. Obviously. However, because there's 4 sites in play, and the schedule is set in advance, the other game in Louisville was automatically going to get a national audience as well. That means UAB/UCLA got a national audience while many, many good games got aired opposite each other. Blargh.

And another problem: since the networks (correctly) want to straddle the games to make sure none end at the same time...that means one or two sites are going to have very, very late games. This led to the Wisconsin situation, among others. Playing late, late into Sunday night is an issue. If you're wondering, back when it was just CBS showing the games, they had to pack in a quadruple header, in order to get out of the way of 60 Minutes, so there were actually no Sunday night games.

I know CBS doesn't want to hear this, but for the sake of both competitive balance and viewership balance, they need to give up their exclusive Early window. The schedule for Saturday/Sunday really should be as follows, using these year's sites as example:

You still essentially have one national window, early in Charlotte from 12-2. If you assume on-schedule and 2 hours per game, the 8 games end at: 2:00, 4:00, 4:40, 6:00, 6:40, 7:30, 8:40, 10:10. Pretty good balance. Everyone's done playing by 10:10 EST, and no one plays past 8 PM local time. 3 games going on at once in the later games, but the overlap is rather minimal (very end of one game while another starts). This is much better, frankly.

And note what happens with the late Seattle game, that last game is a de-facto national game. So CBS, by picking up the Charlotte and Seattle regionals, would still get their 2 national games, only on opposite ends of the day instead of both early.

The only obvious thing is that if a game goes OT, some of this gets wrecked. The 40 minute gap might not be enough, and it might take some finagling to get right.

I wouldn't change much with the Thursday/Friday schedules, except for which regionals tip at which time.

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Bracketball's work is done for the year, now that Bracketology season is over and all my reaction posts are up. I still plan to have content up in the next few weeks, as I want to address a few bigger-picture topics:

1) how to fix Strength of Schedule as a metric
2) the TV format and how the networks choose what games air when and on which networks
3) how to better select regional sites

I would check back every couple of weeks as I work on these. Other than that, we're going mostly silent until October, when it's time to start thinking about the new season.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Ok, time to deal with the criteria the NCAA selection committee has used this year.

In past years, one key phrase has been "non-conference SoS". This year, I noticed an absence of talking about that. Yes, SoS was very important, but the overall SoS was important. Not just the non-con part of it. Of course, the non-con part is the one part a team can control. Those who were born into the royal family of conferences (I'm looking at you, Texas) obviously fares better when you ignore non-conference SoS and go straight to the regular SoS.

I'm not sure this is a good idea by the committee. Overweighting regular SoS compared to non-con SoS is a mistake. To illustrate why, let's take a look at the numbers. Here are the SoS numbers for the last 6 teams in and the first 4 out:

3 teams with top 50 non-con SoSs were left out, in favor of teams with 95, 139, and 164. Hmm. That doesn't sit well. UCLA with (barely) a top 50 SoS in the non-con...okay, fair. Texas, however, is a bit further down, trailing all 4 of the "last four out" teams in this metric. And Dayton and Boise lag way, way behind.

Look at Old Dominion in particular. Overall SoS of 146, unimpressive. But non-con of 40. CUSA dragged them down 100 spots, and then those 100 spots were used to help justify their exclusion compared to other teams. Dayton's overall SoS of 93 doesn't stand out among the bubble candidates, but when you realize the boost the A-10 gave them, they stand out a bit more as an outlier, in the bad direction.

As for the Boise St/Colorado St comparison...overall SoS of 117 vs. 112. No real difference. But CSU has the better non-con SoS, 83 against 164, which is a significant margin. Hmm.

So, after a couple years of emphasizing non-con SoS as an integral part of the profile, the committee has backed off it, and gone to just overall SoS. This clearly benefits the big boys, in this case UCLA, Texas, Ole Miss, and Dayton, all who gained significant ground on their SoS in conference play. Teams in weaker conferences (ODU, Temple to a lesser extent) get killed by this.

I'm not sure I like this new trend from the committee. Here's to hoping they care more about non-con SoS in the future.

Cliff notes: the current format of the First Four is causing issues with the selection committee. Why is this?

This year, there were a million logistical nightmares with the First Four. Dayton was the last team in (obviously, they get a home game...let's set that aside for a second). If UConn had won, with 45 minutes until the selection show, Dayton would've been pushed out of the field, changing the teams going to Dayton (UCLA would then be heading to Dayton).

But that was further complicated in that Dayton played for a AQ bid earlier in the day. So the NCAA had to build 4 contingencies for UConn and Dayton, because if Dayton won, UConn would've pushed out Boise St. And all of this happens just minutes and hours before the selection show.

On top of all this, you throw in BYU's no Sunday rule and being locked into the Tuesday first four game.

As someone who builds a bracket, with this many restrictions on the board, building a proper bracket, and in time, is impossible. With so many variables in play on Sunday morning, the committee likely had to spend all day Sunday building different brackets to account for all the possibilities. Don't forget, the committee also had to deal with Wisconsin's seed in the middle of all this.

Why does this matter? Ideally, the committee should spend Sunday morning scrubbing seeds. This is the time to look back and adjust any final seeds that look out of place. Instead, they have to spend all their time building 12 brackets, and under immense time constraints. That's how we get weird matchups in the tournament.

So, how do we fix the First Four to make the committee's job more reasonable?

Prediction: the First Four format WILL change. The NCAA will request a grace period of 2-3 hours between the last game and the selection show, instead of 30 minutes, in order to build the bracket. Once CBS rejects this request (because money), the NCAA will put the 8 lowest ranked conference champions in the First Four. These teams can be placed in those spots without the same logistical requirements that it takes to fit at-large teams in there. Plus, truTV has the TV rights to these games and aren't getting a lot of attention for them. They can manage the mild ratings hit.

Now, doing this has some advantages and disadvantages for the AQ teams. The one obvious disadvantage is having to play an extra game. The advantages, though:
1) every game you play in the tourney is worth money. If you play 1 game, you get 1 unit. 2 games, 2 units. This includes the First Four. So, for example, Hampton is going to get 2 units, while Lafayette, if they lose to 'Nova, only gets 1 unit. Teams that win in the First Four win extra money for their conference. For the tiny conferences, the amount of one extra unit is not trivial. Giving the little guys more money isn't a terrible thing.
2) if the bottom 8 AQ teams play in the First Four games, you would theoretically have what used to be 15 seeds play in these games. If these quasi-15 seeds win, they play a 1 seed. Now, obviously, a 16 has never beaten a 1. But if a 15 seed, masquerading as a 16 seed, plays this game...a chance of a 16 over 1 upset increases slightly. Anything to toughen up the 1/16 game is a positive in my book.

So there you go. I think this change is coming. The NCAA can't have it stay status quo, IMO. The little guys get screwed in terms of playing an extra game, but...they ARE financially compensated for it.

First, presented without comment, the percentage of teams in each conference that got in the tournament. I've put the conference RPI ranking to the left of each conference, not counting the MAC who was 10th. Syracuse removed from the numbers for the ACC.

Now, keep in mind the Mountain West had a bid poacher in Wyoming. If they had lost, they'd be out and Temple would be in, making the percentages AAC 27% and Mountain West 18%.

Now I don't know about you, but it sure looks like the at-large bids are well-aligned by conference:

- The Big 12 and Big East were the clear #1 and #2 conference, respectively, and got their fair share of bids.
- The ACC and Big 10 were a clear 2nd tier of conferences, and they are grouped together in the percentages.
- The SEC and Pac-12 were the clear 5th/6th conferences this year, trailing the top 4 heavily in the RPI, but clearly ahead of the other conferences. Their percentages are in the 30s.
- The next 6 conferences were the next tier. Each got between 18 and 27 percent, not counting the MAC. There was a large, large gap between the MVC and the next conference (Big West), and no conference below the MVC got an at-large bid.

If you're a conspiracy theorist, this is the year where you can trot our your conference bias theory.

Now, the committee says they don't consider conference affiliation. I believe that. If the casual fan were to go through the selection committee process, they'd lose track of which conferences got which teams in. There would be too much information to track to be able to know that type of thing.

However, this selection committee was dealing with brackets for the whole season. Their job is to pay attention to the sport all year long, and they're meeting over several days to create this bracket. While they don't explicitly mention conference affiliation during discussions, I bet every individual in that room, in the back of their mind, is aware of the situation for every conference at the time. For example, every time I built an S-Curve, I knew ahead of time that the SEC had 2 locks and 4 bubble teams (Ole Miss, Georgia, LSU, A&M). While I don't let that knowledge impact who I select for my field of 68, I am aware of how many the conference has in, because I'm immersed in the bracket. Same for the selection committee. They can individually all be able to track, mentally, the situation for each conference.

So, this brings me to UCLA. If they had missed, for example...the Pac-12 would be down to 25%, equaling them with the other 2nd-tier conferences. The committee said they compared Boise St to Colorado St late in the process. But Dayton was the last team in, not Boise St. So did they have a quota on the Mountain West, because having them at 36% would be an outlier among those group of conferences? Did they keep in Dayton to have the A-10 not fall behind the other conferences?

These are fair questions. The problem is since the committee is so immersed in the bracket, they can all individually track the status of each conference without actually discussing it in the room. Food for thought.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Overall score on the Bracket Matrix: 335
Tied for 35th (35th through 40th), among 136 brackets. So just inside the top quarter percentile. I'm ok with this.

Teams correct: 67 of 68
Part of the cynic in me thinks if I could see ahead, I could say there's no way 4 Mountain West teams would get in. Oh well. I'm not too mad at missing Colorado St, and I was hotter on UCLA than most, so I can't complain. I was closer than most here. 1 of 136 brackets got all 68 correct, and I was one of 12 that got 67 of 68.

Teams correctly seeded: 35 of 68
Ow. This was a large ding. Not good. I think I outthought myself on 2 simple decisions. I made the late swap of Iowa St and Kansas on the 2/3 lines, and moving UNC to the 3 line, dropping a Big 12 team down to the 4 line (likely Oklahoma). Not doing those two things brings me to 39 of 68, which would be above average. 35 is around average, I think. Not good.

Teams within 1 seed line: 64 of 68
Here's where I whopped all y'all, as only 1 of 136 brackets had more (65), and 1 other had 64 as well.

So the lessons I offer:

1) I need to stop over-adjusting the top 4 lines during the final couple of days.
2) I need to adjust more often from the 5-12 lines during the final couple of days.

The committee showed that they won't be reactionary for the top 16 teams based on the last couple of days of the season. However, as shown by Xavier in particular, they do like to adjust a lot in the middle part of the bracket.

Not making the Kansas/Iowa St switch and the UNC/Oklahoma switch would have left me 4th. I may or may not have thrown a chair upon realizing this.

I always like to look back at the NCAA's released S-Curve, and see how they built the bracket. What I mean is how they chose which regionals each team was assigned to, and how big a role geography played. I like to see if the committee did manipulate the bracket, or if there's logical explanations for their controversial moves.

We'll analyze this one seed line at a time:

The 1 line: Kentucky (Louisville, Midwest region), Villanova (Pittsburgh, East region), Duke (Charlotte, South region), Wisconsin (Omaha, West region)
Omaha is slightly closer to Wisconsin than Columbus. However, I thought there'd be a chance Wisky would get sent to Columbus, because they could then use Omaha to host a 2nd Big 12 school, and they had Columbus, Louisville, and Pittsburgh all in a tight area they could use. In my opinion, this is bad forward thinking by the committee to use up a spot in Omaha on Wisky.

The 2 line:
Virginia (Charlotte, East region) - the #5 overall seed goes in with #2 Nova. Tough.
Arizona (Portland, West region) - goes in with #4 Wisky, makes sense
Gonzaga (Seattle, South region) - goes in with #3 Duke
Kansas (Omaha, Midwest region) - interesting decision here. Gonzaga was going to have to travel to either Cleveland or Houston. Houston is preferred for them, but you can make the argument that they have to travel a lot either way. Kansas prefers Houston over Cleveland as well. You could make the argument that instead of mildly dis-serving two teams, you could massively dis-service one team (Gonzaga) in order to help the other team more (Kansas). I'm glad the committee didn't do this. What likely happened was that Kansas was clearly #8, way behind the top 7, and decided it would be unfair to make the 7th team in a 7-team breakaway at the top of the S-Curve play the #1 overall team. Balance actually took hold here.

The 3 line:
#9 overall, Iowa St (Louisville, South region) - here's where the Wisconsin/Omaha thing I mentioned earlier comes into play - ISU has to travel more. With the midwest locked out for ISU, the South is the natural designation.
#10 overall, Baylor (Jacksonville, West region) - Baylor is closer to the West than the East (the only 2 options for them).
#11 overall, Oklahoma (Columbus, East region) - first off, because they're the 4th Big 12 teams, they're forced to be in the East region. As for Columbus...there's no good option left for OU. They have to travel no matter what.
#12 overall, Notre Dame (Pittsburgh, Midwest region) - UND is trapped in the Midwest because this line includes 3 Big 12 teams. Since it does, UND automatically was destined for this region. It's just bad luck and nothing more. What's curious is a slot in Columbus is still open. Why is ND going to Pittsburgh instead?

At this point, we should add the seeds for each regional, to see if there's bias:
Midwest 21, East 18, South 19, West 20. Ok, we're good for now.

The 4 line:
#13 overall, North Carolina (Jacksonville, West region) - UNC is the 4th ACC team, and with 3 other ACC teams in 3 different regionals, the West is the last one available. UNC is forced here no matter what.
#14 overall, Maryland (Columbus, Midwest region) - finally, a team where we have flexibility to work with. Right now, either the East or Midwest fits as geographical fits. Let's put a pin in Maryland and come back to it.
#15 overall, Louisville (Seattle, East region) - the 5th ACC team, so they have to share a regional with a ACC team. Ideally, you want them on the opposite side of the region of the ACC team. This means either the East or Midwest regions. So, basically, them and Maryland are interchangable right now. Let's put a pin in Louisville and come back to it.
#16 overall, Georgetown (Portland, South region) - obviously, these last 2 teams have to go northwest in the first 2 rounds. As for region...Georgetown can either go West or South (locked out of the West by UNC and the East by Villanova). As the worst 4 seed, Georgetown should be shipped the farthest, and with the preferences of UL and Maryland, G'town should head to the South.

Now we return to Louisville and Maryland, who are interchangable. Two things at this point help us decide who goes where:
1) Louisville/Kentucky would be a tourney rematch and should be avoided if it can be easily helped, and
2) Based on overall seeds, the Midwest region should preferably add the better seed/team
Both these things point to Maryland in the Midwest and Louisville in the East.

The top 16 teams are set. Now, let's revisit the Wisconsin/Omaha thing. Let's make the switch and send Wisconsin to Columbus. What would happen?
1) Iowa St would go to Omaha instead of Louisville, a much better fit for them.
2) Notre Dame, instead of going to Pittsburgh, gets a slightly better trip to Louisville
3) Maryland would be in Pittsburgh instead of Columbus.
2 and 3 are minor changes. But 1 is a somewhat significant change, and Iowa St loses a bit because the committee is short-sighted.

I'm not going to recap every other team, but I am going to point out fun facts:
1) SMU at 21 overall was the top 6 seed. Therefore, they have top choice of region, and they get placed in the South, where Houston hosts. If SMU were 20 overall, they would've been in the East region, having a Seattle/Syracuse path. Holy moley.
2) Xavier is the last 6 seed, and has a Jacksonville/Los Angeles path. If they were one spot lower, as the top 7 seed, they'd get to play in Cleveland in the second weekend if they got there.
3) Wichita St is exactly one spot in front of Iowa in the S-Curve. Wichita St gets to go to Omaha and Iowa goes to Seattle. Ha.
4) VCU was the last 7 seed, therefore they get stuck with a horrible awful Portland/Los Angeles path. If they were the highest 8, they'd have Pittsburgh/Syracuse as their path. Amazing.
5) 7 seeds funnel to sites in Portland and Seattle (and 2 others). The 8 line includes Oregon and San Diego St. Alas, Oregon has to go to Omaha and San Diego St has to go to Charlotte. Meanwhile, Iowa and VCU get sent to the northeast. I know true seed line matters, but doesn't a swap of these 4 teams seem insanely obvious?
6) On the 10 line, Davidson is the second team. There's actually a spot in Charlotte wide open for them...and they got shipped to Seattle instead. I'm guessing the committee just simply thought it'd be too big a homecourt advantage. Which is highly curious, because in the past, they've gone the other way when power conference teams were involved. NCAA, why is Davidson not in the Charlotte sub-regional?
7) Dayton playing in Dayton is just one of those things that happen. But how about going to Columbus after that? Here's the thing: BYU has to play on Tuesday in the First Four, for Sunday-related reasons. The BYU/Ole Miss game feeds into a Jacksonville site. Why not let BYU play Dayton? Dayton doesn't have to travel like Ole Miss so you save a day of travel for Ole Miss by doing this. Then, Dayton doesn't have extreme home court advantage in the rounds of 64 and 32. After all, since you didn't put Davidson in Charlotte, you don't want to put Dayton in Columbus, right? Therefore, you should've paired Dayton and BYU in the First Four. The NCAA just contradicted itself between the placement of Davidson and Dayton in the bracket.
8) Wyoming was the top 12 seed. They had an option of a Seattle/Syracuse or a Portland/Houston path...and chose Seattle/Syracuse. Huh? It looks like the reason is this: Stephen F Austin lurked behind them on the 12 line, and they saved the Houston site for SFA. Hmmmm.

Monday, March 16, 2015

Best teams not to make the postseason are as follows. I'm excluding teams who were known to reject CBI/CIT bids outright, and also excluding teams from top conferences (including the A-10).

Yale
Chattanooga
Monmouth
Hawaii
Georgia Southern
These are the 5 teams who appear to have been truly snubbed from the CBI/CIT perspective. I'm not sure how many of them did turn down bids, just not publicly. But these 5 in general are postseason worthy teams.

Teams who have an argument, solely because a lesser conference mate did get in a postseason tournament: Bryant, Mount St Mary's, Morehead St.

So the lessons?
1) Playing late in the week, even on Selection Sunday, hurts your chances. I'm looking at the possible miss of Georgia Southern and Yale in particular.
2) Conference mates can be leapfrogged if you're willing to host a game.
3) The CIT and CBI might be jumping the gun on invites. It's clear they didn't plan out their bids quite right and accidentally left a couple good teams on the table. There are 3 glaring, GLARING mistakes: Yale, Chattanooga, and Ga Southern. Monmouth and Hawaii, okay, things happen. But the other 3 shouldn't have been left out.

Big 12:
7 NCAA (Texas, OSU, Oklahoma, Iowa St, Baylor, Kansas, WVU)
Kansas St left out of the NIT, which I'm okay with. Surprised TCU, even at 4-14 in conference, didn't wind up in the CBI. I'm guessing the Big 12 in general has a CBI boycott.

Big East:
6 NCAA (Nova, Geurgetown, Butler, Provi, Xavier, St John's)
No NIT for Seton Hall, who did finish above .500 but careened to 6-12 in conference. No confirmation they turned down CBI, but I'm assuming that happened.

Big Sky:
1 NCAA (EWU), 1 NIT (Montana), 2 EIEIO (Sac State, Northern Arizona)
I'm glad the other 2 teams in the 4-way race for the Big Sky title made the CBI/CIT. Perfect. The conference did have a Northern Colorado team at 15-15, 10-8 and Portland St team at 15-14, 9-9, but neither made it. I think that's right too, neither should've been a postseason team. Checkmark.

Big South:
1 NCAA (CCU), 1 NIT (Charleston Southern), 3 EIEIO (High Point, Gardner-Webb, Radford)
Did Winthrop turn down a bid? At 12-6 in conference, 19-13 overall, might be the first questionable miss. UNC-Asheville was the 7th team here in contention for the title in midseason, but they finished under .500 overall, so I'm ok with them missing out.

Big West:
1 NCAA (Irvine), 1 NIT (Davis), 1 EIEIO (UCSB)
After the top 3, LBSU was 10-6 in conference, but under .500 overall. Hawaii was .500 in conference, but had 22 wins. I understand neither being in either EIEIO tournament.

CUSA:
1 NCAA (UAB), 3 NIT (ODU, LaTech, UTEP), 1 EIEIO (MTSU)
Only one issue here, is Western Kentucky. 20-12, 12-6, and clearly deserving of a EIEIO bid. Of course, since they turned down the bid, they can't complain.

Indys:
1 EIEIO (NJIT)

Horizon:
1 NCAA (Valpo), 1 NIT (Green Bay), 2 EIEIO (Cleveland St, Oakland)
The 4 teams that separated from the rest of the league all get into the postseason. Well done.

Ivy:
1 NCAA (Harvard), 1 EIEIO (Dartmouth)
The real surprise here is Yale turning down a CBI/CIT bid. Obviously there's no way the CBI or CIT wouldn't invite them, that would be insane. Princeton was 9-5, 16-14, and might have a postseason argument as well, but I'm guessing they turned down a bid as well, as lower Dartmouth got in.

MEAC:
1 NCAA (Hampton), 1 NIT (NCCU), 3 EIEIO (Norfolk, UMES, Delaware St)
I think the MEAC got one too many in DSU. Heck, even Howard had a better conference record and was .500 overall and didn't get a postseason invite.

MVC:
2 NCAA (Wichita, UNI), 1 NIT (Illinois St), 2 EIEIO (Loyola, Evansville)
Indiana St at 15-16 overall, but 11-7 in conference, have no CBI invite. I figured that'd be the type of team to go to the CBI at under .500 overall.

NEC:
1 NCAA (RMU), 1 NIT (St Francis(NY)), 1 EIEIO (St Francis(PA))
So the PA version of St Francis is in the postseason, at .500 in conference, but Bryant at 12-6 and Mount St Mary's at 11-7 are not. I cannot find word on if either turned down a bid. If not, here's a questionable decision made by the CIT right here.

Patriot:
1 NCAA (Lafayette), 1 NIT (Bucknell)
2nd place in this conference was Colgate, but they were under .500 overall. Lehigh was 3rd, but just 10-8. It would seem like a conference would deserve a 3rd postseason team under almost any circumstance, but it's tough to actually find a deserving one here.

Sun Belt:
1 NCAA (Ga State), 2 EIEIO (UL-Monroe, UL-Lafayette)
Developing situation here. Remember, this was a 4-team race, and Georgia Southern was the 4th (and lost on Selection Sunday to Ga State). No invite for them, and all indications are that they wanted to play. They clearly deserved a bid somewhere, so this begs the question: did playing on Sunday cost them? Since the CBI and CIT didn't want to wait to see if they were available? If that's the case, this is a gross violation by these two tournaments.

CIT:
New Hampshire at NJIT - Good for independent NJIT getting a bid. UNH was 11-5 in A-East, 4th place, reasonable selection.
Eastern Illinois at Oakland - Oakland was part of the 4-way battle for the Horizon title. EIU faded to 9-7 in the down OVC, questionable selection perhaps.
James Madison at USC Upstate - Upstate had 23 wins on the year, but only 8-6 in the A-Sun...I'd select them. JMU was part of the 4-way tie for the CAA crown and an obvious selection.
Bowling Green at St Francis(PA) - BGU was in contention for the MAC title until the end. St Francis was a .500 team in the NEC and 1 game above .500 overall. Meh.
Norfolk St at Eastern Kentucky - Norfolk was 2nd to NCCU in the MEAC. EKU tied for the East division in the OVC, with Belmont. Both solid selections.
Louisiana-Lafayette at Incarnate Word - ULL was in 4th in the Sun Belt, just 2 games back of the title. IWU was 10-8 in the Southland, but this is their first postseason as a D1. I'm ok with that.
Maryland-Eastern Shore at High Point - UMES finished 3rd in the MEAC...borderline selection but at 3rd place, I'm fine with it. High Point was part of that 7-way race in the Big South.
Dartmouth at Canisius - Dartmouth was a .500 Ivy team. Canisius was 11-9, 5th in the MAAC. Both feel on the edge of being reasonable selections.
Texas A&M-Corpus Christi at FGCU - FGCU lost the A-Sun title on the final week. TAMU-CC was T3 in the Southland. I approve.
Cleveland St at Western Michigan - Both were contenders for the league title in the final week in the Horizon and MAC, respectively.
Kent St at Middle Tennessee - Kent St was another one of those 6 MAC teams in contention late for that title. MTSU was 6th in CUSA, at .500 in conference. Given the top of CUSA was pretty good, .500 is deserving of a postseason, IMO.
UNC-Wilmington at Sam Houston St - UNCW was part of the 4-way CAA tie, and Sam Houston St was a bubble NIT team. Very solid matchup.
Northern Arizona at Grand Canyon - NAU was part of the 4-way race for the Big Sky title; GCU finished tied for 2nd in the WAC, so I guess they earned their spot. But 2nd in that conference was 8-6. Ew.
IPFW at Evansville - IPFW was 9-7 in the Summit, and might be borderline. Evansville was .500 in the MVC, which isn't borderline.
Sacramento St at Portland - Sac State was another part of the 4-way race in the Big Sky. Portland was above .500 overall, but just 7-11 in the WCC. Borderline.
Tennessee-Martin at Northwestern St - NW State was T3 in the Southland, UT-M was 10-6 in the OVC, T4. Both kind of on the edge, but okay.

By my non-expert eye:
Teams who didn't earn a bid that got it: St Francis(PA), Eastern Illinois
Borderline teams that I don't mind getting a bid, but I hope they didn't get in ahead of more deserving teams: UMES, Dartmouth, Canisius, IPFW, Portland, Tennessee-Martin

CBI:
Gardner-Webb at Colorado - Colorado, 7-11 and 15-17, in the CBI. Yuck. Awful. G-Dub was one of the 7 Big South teams.
Pepperdine at Seattle - Pepperdine was 4th behind the big 3 in the WCC. Seattle was .500 in the awful WAC.
Vermont at Hofstra - Hofstra was 5th in the 4-team CAA race, but did deserve a postseason. Vermont was 2nd in A-East.
Radford at Delaware St - Radford, another team part of the Big South zaniness. DSU, 9-7 in MEAC play, seems aggressively in. 4th MEAC postseason team!
Stony Brook at Mercer - 2nd in A-East for Stony Brook. Mercer was 3rd in the SoCon, at 12-6, so it is a good bid for them despite their RPI.
Eastern Michigan at Louisiana-Monroe - ULM was part of the 4-way race in the Sun Belt. EMU had 21 wins on the year but just 8-10 in the MAC. I guess they have to be in the postseason with 21 wins, to be fair.
Rider at Loyola(Chi) - Loyola was a sub .500 team, but in the MVC. Rider was 2nd in the MAAC. 2 checkmarks from me.
UC Santa Barbara at Oral Roberts - UCSB was T2 in the Big West. Oral Bob was 3rd solo in the Summit. Ok.

By my non-expert eye:
Teams who didn't earn a bid that got it: Colorado, Seattle, Delaware St
Borderline teams that I don't mind getting a bid, but I hope they didn't get in ahead of more deserving teams: none, the other 13 I'm okay with

So with that out of the way, I've got 5 very questionable selections and 6 marginally questionable selections. In another post I'll look at who's sitting out of the postseason, to see if these selections really are questionable.

1) Temple vs. 8) Bucknell
4) Pittsburgh vs. 5) George Washington
3) Louisiana Tech vs. 6) Central Michigan
2) Texas A&M vs. 7 Montana
I'm a bit surprised at Louisiana Tech's seed. That suggests a clear at-large bid to the NIT, and them being within 10 or so of the NCAA bubble. I'm wondering if that was a procedural bump or geographical bump to help mitigate travel. Everyone else is seeded appropriately.

1) Richmond vs. 8) St Francis(NY)
4) UConn vs. 5) Arizona St
3) Illinois vs. 6) Alabama
2) Miami vs. 7) North Carolina Central
Arizona St and Alabama are both marginal selections, IMO. Below-average power conference teams, I would prefer to see mid-major teams in their place. I had both out, but not far out at least. Meanwhile, UConn as a 4 seed is criminal. No, they're not a NCAA tournament team, but they do have a reasonable resume.

1) Colorado St vs. 8) South Dakota St
4) St Mary's vs. 5) Vanderbilt
3) Rhode Island vs. 6) Iona
2) Stanford vs. 7) UC-Davis
Vanderbilt is the one I don't get. At the least, I had Alabama over them, and the committee went Vandy. Did they just see the win-loss record and go with it? At least they're making them travel a bit. Although I'd swap Arizona St and Vandy in the brackets. Who cares if conference mates meet in the quarterfinals of this tournament?

I missed Vandy/Arizona St/Alabama. I had in: Yale, Memphis, South Carolina.

South Carolina is a curious omission, if only because they have better wins than their other SEC teams. I actually give them credit for leaving blueblood Memphis out; I thought they'd go the other way. Yale is the omission that really, really bothers me.

Sunday, March 15, 2015

I'm going to save performance analysis of how I did until Bracket Matrix is done running the numbers.

MIDWEST
@Louisville
1) Kentucky vs. 16) Hampton/Manhattan
8) Cincinnati vs. 9) Purdue
The committee places a couple also-rans in the 8/9 game in Kentucky's way. Convenient.
@Columbus
4) Maryland vs. 13) Valparaiso
5) West Virginia vs. 12) Buffalo
I had Maryland on the 3 line, and they clearly got shuffled back in favor of Big 12 teams. No major issue with that, but I disagree
@Pittsburgh
3) Notre Dame vs. 14) Northeastern
6) Butler vs. 11) Texas
Texas above the last 4 in? There's some SoS bias in here
@Omaha
2) Kansas vs. 15) New Mexico St
7) Wichita St vs. 10) Indiana
Pleasantly surprised the committee seeded Indiana to the 10 line, I thought they'd be more harsh. Also, Wichita has a horrible seed but they don't mind. And they get to play in Omaha

WEST
@Omaha
1) Wisconsin vs. 16) Coastal Carolina
8) Oregon vs. 9) Oklahoma St
I guess the committee did have the stones to send Wisky to Omaha. I still think Columbus would've been better
@Jacksonville
4) North Carolina vs. 13) Harvard
5) Arkansas vs. 12) Wofford
If you're going to reward teams for great schedules, why not reward UNC? They're the one team that can punch on the same level with the Big 12 teams from a SoS standpoint. Bit surprised they went Baylor and Iowa St over UNC on the S-Curve. Moderate whiff from the committee
@Jacksonville
3) Baylor vs. 14) Georgia St
6) Xavier vs. 11) BYU/Ole Miss
My Big 12 thoughts are littered else, but Baylor is the one team I'm surprised that beat out UND and UNC on the S-Curve, among others. #10 overall is highly aggressive
@Portland
2) Arizona vs. 15) Texas Southern
7) VCU vs. 10) Ohio St
15 seed! There you go, selection committee! They deservedly took the SWAC of the 16 line. I was very worried they wouldn't. Good job

EAST
@Pittsburgh
1) Villanova vs. 16) Lafayette
8) North Carolina St vs. 9) LSU
LSU's seed is a surprise. This was a bubble team, and I don't see their resume being any better than most of the 10 line. In particular, they are well ahead of Georgia and Ole Miss and I don't see it
@Seattle
4) Louisville vs. 13) UC Irvine
5) Northern Iowa vs. 12) Wyoming
A reasonable pod
@Columbus
3) Oklahoma vs. 14) Albany
6) Providence vs. 11) Boise St/Dayton
Dayton has an insane seed. There's flaws in the resume but the reasonable SoS, the raw numbers...there should be enough here. I'm not comfortable with this seed by the committee
@Charlotte
2) Virginia vs. 15) Belmont
7) Michigan St vs. 10) Georgia
Another reasonable pod. Virginia getting the #2 overall seed isn't the greatest draw for them, by the way. It's a less extreme example of the Kentucky/Wisconsin narrative we've had the past few days, but this is just as unfair to both Nova and UVa

SOUTH
@Charlotte
1) Duke vs. 16) North Florida/Robert Morris
8) San Diego St vs. 9) St John's
Nothing to complain about here
@Portland
4) Georgetown vs. 13) Eastern Washington
5) Utah vs. 12) Stephen F Austin
I'm surprised Georgetown got all the way to the 4 line. Them vs. Utah, UNI, Arkansas, WVU...you can make the argument. I wouldn't, but the committee did
@Louisville
3) Iowa St vs. 14) UAB
6) SMU vs. 11) UCLA
UCLA's inclusion is a bit insane. Not a lot insane, considering they weren't out of my bracket until Wyoming took their spot. The issue is they were 4 spots clear of the cutline. I just don't think there's an argument for them over other power conference teams, at all, and I already pointed out how insane Dayton's seed is
@Seattle
2) Gonzaga vs. 15) North Dakota St
7) Iowa vs. 10) Davidson
Nothing to complain about here, either

There's, overall, some serious seeding issues, but these are mostly isolated.

Saturday, March 14, 2015

Thoughts:
1) Wisconsin to the 1 line, Virginia to the 2. My heart's not into it, but it's what I believe the committee will do.
2) I dropped Georgia like a stone during my seed scrubbing. I think they're safe though, ahead of two other SEC bubble teams.
3) I'm not exactly comfortable with how close everyone has Indiana to the bubble. I just don't see it. I think they're clear by about 5 spots. They just simply have better wins than the other bubble teams.
4) I dropped the Mountain West teams some, but not a lot. Colorado St did drop down, and I would not be shocked if they were a surprise miss.
5) If I'm gonna be wrong, it's going to be on Temple. No qualms with them being in. I might debate Texas/Temple down to the wire.
6) Back up to the top...my gut says Notre Dame on the 2 line, but that non-con SoS says nope. It's reluctant, but I think that 2 seed is Iowa St's.
7) Another pressure point...last 3 seed. UNC/Oklahoma. I could go either way on this one.
8) Pressure point...#16 overall on the S-Curve. I would NOT be shocked if UL got pushed down to the 5. They're much closer to that than the 3.
9) The 7-9 lines are ugly, IMO. The profiles fall off fast.

SEC finals: Arkansas/Kentucky...this would be worth multiple seeding lines to Arkansas if they get this
A-10 finals: VCU and Dayton...I could see the committee just ignoring this game, they've got bigger fish to fry
AAC finals: UConn/SMU. They will need to build contingencies for this game. I'm guessing they'll save a spot on the 11 line for UConn
Big 10 finals: Wisky/Michigan St. Contingencies here too. Wisky will have to hold to stay a 1 seed because Duke/UVa/Arizona are too strong. Committee can't ignore this game like they have in previous years
Sun Belt finals: Georgia St/Georgia Southern in one last NIT bid poach watch

Big 12 finals:Iowa St 70, Kansas 66 - god, I have no idea what to do with the 2 line. I think it should be Notre Dame. I think past evidence says Kansas would keep it. Therefore, I'm going Iowa St. I reserve the right to change my mind

ACC finals:
Notre Dame 90, North Carolina 82 - at the very least, UND has prevented the committee from punishing them for the non-con SoS. 3 is the floor now. UNC...are SoS monsters. They'll be fine, seed-wise

Big East finals:
Villanova 69, Xavier 52 - you can make an excellent argument it's Nova who should give up their 1 seed to make room for UVa/Duke/Wisky. I just think the committee will be blind to those particular thoughts

Pac-12 finals:Arizona 80, Oregon 52 - unfortunately for Zona, the Pac-12 was down and the teams that needed to cooperate (Wisky and Nova) haven't

MW finals:Wyoming 45, San Diego St 43 - you all know what this means by now

Big 10 semifinals:
Wisconsin 71, Purdue 51 - moving Wisky to the 1 line...actually get hurt slightly with the upset by MSU. A win over Maryland would've been nice as resume insurance, to ensure that 1 seed
Michigan St 62, Maryland 58 - MSU creeping up to the 6 line

There are also plenty of unconfirmed reports out there (players, coaches saying their season is still going, while not confirming details of it). As of Saturday afternoon, I'm probably done updating this post, as we only really have to wait 24 hours at this point.

Teams still in play, but are too far gone for an at-large bid: UConn, Rhode Island

While I leave the bubble with 13 teams playing for 7 spots, the very likely scenario is this: There are two spots left, held by Texas and UCLA. Those are the spots that will disappear if the likes of Wyoming and UConn win their conference tourneys. Also, Temple and Tulsa are both gunning for those spots. I leave Murray St and ODU on the board as the sentimental possible mid-major choices, and Miami/Illinois as the stock power conference options left on the board.

I'm still not sure what I want to do with the 1 line. Duke having those head-to-head wins is extremely massive right now, but I can't help but wonder that the committee can't ignore Wisky's double championships (if they happen).

Friday, March 13, 2015

Big 12 finals: Kansas vs. Iowa St, in what might just be for a 2 seed. By the way, this 2 seed is now in line to get stuck with Kentucky, so stay tuned. You may not want to win this one
Mountain West finals: Wyoming in a pure bid-steal situation against SDSU
Big East finals: Xavier has done wonders for their profile, this would be worth many seed lines. Nova must get this to maintain a 1 seed
ACC finals: North Carolina and Notre Dame. I think the 3 line is the peak for both here
Pac-12 finals: Oregon/Arizona

Big 10 semifinals: Purdue/Wisconsin, as Purdue goes for the lockbox and Wisky goes for the 1 line. Michigan St/Maryland for positioning
SEC semifinals: Auburn/Kentucky, Georgia/Arkansas, blah
A-10 semifinals: VCU/Davidson, Rhode Island/Dayton
AAC semifinals: Temple/SMU, UConn/Tulsa, let's see what the two bubble teams do
Sun Belt semifinals: top 4 seeds have made it to this point

Big 12 semifinals:
Kansas 62, Baylor 52 - big, because Maryland and Notre Dame are charging for their spot on the 2 line
Iowa St 67, Oklahoma 65 - I think the final pecking order is going to be ISU > OU > BU > WVU for these Big 12 teams

ACC semifinals:
North Carolina 71, Virginia 67 - I don't think UNC can get all the way to the 3 line; it's pretty crowded there. A win tomorrow might make me change my mind
Notre Dame 74, Duke 64 - well, things just got complicated on the 1 line. I gotta think about this

Big 10 quarterfinals:
Wisconsin 71, Michigan 60 - and now the stakes are high for Wisky thanks to the ACC losses
Purdue 64, Penn St 59 - and Purdue gets into a no-loss game against Wisky. Well done
Maryland 75, Indiana 69 - the 2 line still in play for Maryland, but Kansas isn't cooperating
Michigan St 76, Ohio St 67

MEAC semifinals:
Delaware St 63, North Carolina Central 57 - just a stupid, stupid upset, and your MEAC champion will be the #68 team on the S-Curve this year
Hampton 75, Norfolk St 64 - and of course the competent 2 seed goes down too

Changes:
North Carolina from a 5 to a 4 seed
Utah from a 4 seed to a 5 seed (Utah did nothing wrong; UNC jumped them)
Wichita St from a 6 seed to a 5 seed
Butler from a 5 seed to a 6 seed (Butler's loss is Wichita's gain)
Xavier from a 9 seed to a 8 seed
Iowa from a 8 seed to a 9 seed
NC State from a 10 seed to a 9 seed
Oklahoma St from a 9 seed to a 10 seed

This is part 33 of a 33-part series in this blog, designed to give you all the information you need to know about each conference's tournament, and the postseason prospects of every single team in the conference.

ACC quarterfinals: UNC/Louisville is big for seeding purposes; I like the winner to hold onto a protected seed in the end. NC State gets Duke, but it only matters for seeding purposes now. What does matter is Miami, against Notre Dame, for both teams (I think Notre Dame is a 3 seed, many others don't).

Big East quarterfinals: Some nice matchups here. St John's and Provi are next to each other in my S-Curve, so their game will be useful. Xavier/Butler as well.

Big 12 quarterfinals: Baylor/West Virginia is a big game for seeding purposes. Texas/Iowa St. This is for the world for Texas. Your one chance. Oklahoma/Oklahoma St. OSU should be safe; OU playing for the 3 line.

Pac-12 quarterfinals: UCLA in a must-hold situation against USC. Oregon should be home free, but would be well advised to handle Colorado. And Stanford's big chance against Utah looms.